Criminal appeals stemming from a single incident involving allegations of wrongful confinement and human trafficking of a domestic worker. Ajay Malik’s appeal challenges the High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings against him, while the State of Uttarakhand appeals the High Court’s decision to discharge co-accused Ashok Kumar. The court meticulously examines the evidence, including the complainant’s shifting statements and the availability of alternative exits from Malik’s residence, to determine the validity of the charges. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashes all proceedings against Ajay Malik and upholds Ashok Kumar’s discharge, concluding that a prima facie case for wrongful confinement or trafficking was not established against either. Beyond these specific cases, the judgment critically addresses the lack of legal protection for domestic workers in India, urging the government to establish a comprehensive legal framework to safeguard their rights.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Penal Code, 186, Sections 343 and 370 – Quashing of FIR – No prima facie case – Appellant employed the Complainant through the Placement Agency established by ‘Sh’ for domestic work at his residence in Dehradun, which she joined on 16.10.2016 – She continued to work there for over five months without any untoward incident – As per the purported agreement between the Placement Agency and appellant, the Complainant’s wages were regularly paid to her through the Agency – It therefore appears that the only agreement between appellant and co-accused ‘Sh’ was the employment of the Complainant as domestic help at the former’s residence – A thorough review of the material on record does not indicate any orchestrated arrangement by appellant with the co- accused to exploit or confine the Complainant – Case appears to involve minimal interaction or communication between appellant and the co-accused – Any correspondence between them seems limited strictly to hiring of the Complainant as a domestic worker at appellant’s residence – Against this backdrop, the charge under Section 120B of the IPC qua Ajay Malik is highly speculative and warrants rejection at the very threshold – In light of the conclusions reached regarding each of the offences alleged against appellant, it becomes clear that the Investigating Agency has failed to establish any prima facie case – Since the FIR has been investigated and a Chargesheet has been filed, the FIR alone cannot serve as the basis for dismissing appellant’s claims – Even assuming the FIR is accurate, it does not substantiate the charges, which appear to have been mechanically transcribed into the Chargesheet, despite the Investigating Agency having had sufficient opportunity to gather material evidence – No element of illegal confinement, trafficking, or criminal conspiracy has been established against appellant – Additionally, the Complainant has, under oath, stated that she was not illegally confined – If this remains her position in Court, the purpose of proceeding to trial becomes questionable, amounting to an exercise in futility and a sheer wastage of judicial resources – It appears that the Complainant’s primary grievance lies in the unfair treatment she received from ‘Su’, ‘MR’ and ‘Sh’ – Allegations against these three co-accused are significantly more serious and grave, considering that charges have been filed against them under Sections 370, 373 and 376 of the IPC – In light of the absence of any prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by appellant; the vague and omnibus claims made in the FIR and subsequently the Chargesheet; and the Complainant’s consistent stance to compound and settle the dispute, unable to concur with the High Court’s conclusion in the Impugned Judgement, which otherwise constitutes a fit case for quashing – Impugned Judgement passed by High Court accordingly set aside and the FIR, Chargesheet and all other proceedings therefore arising qua appellant liable to be quashed.
(Para 22 to 29 and 55)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 – Penal Code, 186, Sections 343 and 370 – Compounding of offence – Section 370 IPC, being a serious offence, does not find a place on the Schedule attached to Section 320 of the CrPC and is thus classified as a non-compoundable offence – Held that although inclined to agree with the High Court’s rejection of appellants’ Compounding Application owing to the non-compoundable nature of alleged offences, this issue is nonetheless rendered academic given conclusion in the previous issue, where the High Court’s view regarding quashing application has been rejected – Therefore, while we may not need to delve into this issue, it must be underscored that a delicate balance ought to be struck in cases wherein the parties seek compounding of the offences – Though well-intentioned, an excessively moralistic order may unnecessarily prolong criminal proceedings, which have no logical conclusion and only serve to further distress the parties – Accordingly, the correctness of the High Court’s decision to disallow appellant’s Compounding Application does not require consideration on merits.
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227 – Penal Code, 1860, Section 343 and 370 –Discharge order – Challenge as to – Held that the discharge stage acts as a critical filter to eliminate cases lacking legal merit, sparing the accused from unnecessary proceedings, while ensuring that credible cases proceed to trial – Thus, discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC is justified when the material on record fails to disclose a prima facie case against the accused to proceed for trial – The legislative spirit behind this provision envisions the rights of the accused being balanced with public interest, so as to ultimately prevent abuse of the legal process – Allegations against respondent-‘AK’ is that he held the key to the residence where the Complainant was allegedly wrongfully confined – Claims of wrongful confinement against ‘AM’ was rejected based on the High Court’s finding regarding the alternative exit available to the Complainant – There is no direct allegation against ‘AK’ made by the Complainant herself – Neither the FIR nor the Complainant’s statements disclose any explicit, illegal act on ‘AK’s part – He was not named in the original FIR, and was only added by way of a Supplementary Chargesheet by the Investigating Officer, seemingly as an after-thought – This hasty inclusion lacks any substantive justification – While he was delivered the keys by ‘AM’ and held them as a favor to him, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever visited the premises or was aware and acting in furtherance of any wrongful confinement of the Complainant – Held that have no hesitation in upholding the correctness of the reasoned order of the High Court, in allowing the discharge of ‘AK’ from the criminal proceedings – Given the demonstrable lack of any mens rea or intent on the part of ‘AK’, apart from the lack of any direct involvement, his discharge is well-founded and warrants no interference by this Court.
(Para 34 to 36)
(D) Protection of rights of domestic workers – It is an incontrovertible fact that the demand for domestic workers has been mounting in India, in consonance with rapid urbanization and development – While any avenues for employment being opened to marginalised women merit celebration, we are at pains to note that despite their growing demand, this indispensable workforce has also been the most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse – Non-regulation of this crucial labour sector, which often leads to the aforementioned malignant results – Held that domestic workers’ lacking legal protection in India – Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice directed to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers – The composition of the Expert Committee is left to the wisdom of the Government of India and its concerned Ministries – It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within a period of 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers.
(Para 38 to 40 and 55)
Ajay Malik V. State Of Uttarakhand
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 118: (DoJ 29-01-2025)
